Author Topic: Programs you can use during a financial meltdown! (Read 38,715 times)

zridling · « **on:** October 03, 2008, 03:52 AM »

[nod to Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols]
[attach]

VideoInPicture · « **Reply #1 on:** October 03, 2008, 06:55 AM »

Instead of Mathematica or Matlab: GNU Octave
Instead of Photoshop: GIMP or Paint.Net

However, for office programs, I would still pay for Microsoft Office 2007 simply because I think the ribbon interface is vastly superior to what's on offer from the open source community.

zridling · « **Reply #2 on:** October 03, 2008, 01:14 PM »

Quote

[VideoInPicture]: However, for office programs, I would still pay for Microsoft Office 2007 simply because I think the ribbon interface is vastly superior to what's on offer from the open source community.

I can't dispute the elegance of the ribbon, even though I prefer Lotus Symphony's more space-efficient tabs w/toolbars and sidebar. Jensen Harris is a great guy. See http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2008/03/12/the-story-of-the-ribbon.aspx if others are curious about the history of the ribbon.
______________________
PS: Eric, your Circle Dock software is really cool!

cranioscopical · « **Reply #3 on:** October 03, 2008, 01:18 PM »

I used to use the software that came with my scanner, but they have made that more difficult now. Besides, I can no longer afford the paper onto which I could print some $100-bills, nor the cart which I'd need to transport enough bills to pay for a loaf of bread.

zridling · « **Reply #4 on:** October 03, 2008, 05:21 PM »

Hey, make sure you get an old copy of Adobe Photoshop 6 if you're needing to print money!

It was the last version that allowed it.

40hz · « **Reply #5 on:** October 03, 2008, 07:39 PM »

Or maybe when you just don't have any money to spend on software because you need to buy groceries, or pay the rent this month...

Illustrator : Inkscape
http://www.inkscape.org/

WYSIWTG Web Page Editor : Kompozer for Windows (formerly Nvu)
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/kompozer/kompozer-0.7.10-win32.zip?use_mirror=ovh

FinalDraft : Celtx
http://celtx.com/

Microsoft IIs : Fastream IQ Web/FTP Server or Abyss Web Server X1

http://www.fastream.com/iqwebftpserver.php

http://www.aprelium.com/abyssws/

Microsoft Exchange Server:

MailEnable Standard Edition (FREE) for just e-mail
http://www.mailenable.com/

-or-

Simple Groupware & CMS for the whole shebang (i.e. email, calendaring, contacts, tasks, document management,etc. etc. etc.)
http://www.simple-groupware.de/cms/

Microsoft Windows Vista : Linux!!! When you're ready to waddle the waddle.
(If you know me, you were waiting for that weren't you?

)

Go to Distrowatch, read some reviews, and pick a flavor!

http://distrowatch.com/

[attach]

cranioscopical · « **Reply #6 on:** October 03, 2008, 07:42 PM »

Quote from: zridling on October 03, 2008, 05:21 PM

Hey, make sure you get an old copy of Adobe Photoshop 6 if you're needing to print money! It was the last version that allowed it.

I was using these, until people started to say that something about them looked funny...

[attach]

4wd · « **Reply #7 on:** October 04, 2008, 12:25 AM »

Quote from: 40hz on October 03, 2008, 07:39 PM

Or maybe when you just don't have any money to spend on software because you need to buy groceries, or pay the rent this month...

If paying rent is a problem: Rent A Farmhouse

Live far away from the ratrace¹.

1 - Disclaimer: I'm in no way implying that you live near or within a rat infested society. But if you did, you can rest assured that here in Australia we can provide you with the comfort of fellow rats if you so desire. Indeed, I've known some quite big rats.

zridling · « **Reply #8 on:** October 04, 2008, 03:51 AM »

.... when I get $4, I'm gonna git me one of those beauties! (It's the commute that will kill me.)

Grorgy · « **Reply #9 on:** October 04, 2008, 03:56 AM »

The commute would be the killer, and i live in the same country

zridling · « **Reply #10 on:** October 04, 2008, 03:59 AM »

One of the criticisms of free software is that certain classes of applications are missing. Interestingly, the FSF agrees, up to a point, and has put together what it calls its high-priority projects list:

1. Gnash — the free software Flash player
2. Coreboot — the campaign for a free BIOS
3. Free software replacement for Skype
4. Membership and donor transaction and contact system
5. Free software video editing software
6. Free Google Earth Replacement
7. gNewSense — The all free software GNU/Linux operating system
8. GNU Octave — free software Matlab replacement
9. Replacement for OpenDWG libraries
10. Reversible Debugging in GDB
11. Free software drivers for network routers

Deozaan · « **Reply #11 on:** October 04, 2008, 04:16 AM »

Quote from: zridling on October 04, 2008, 03:59 AM

One of the criticisms of free software is that certain classes of applications are missing. Interestingly, the FSF agrees, up to a point, and has put together what it calls its high-priority projects list:

1. Gnash — the free software Flash player
2. Coreboot — the campaign for a free BIOS
3. Free software replacement for Skype
4. Membership and donor transaction and contact system
5. Free software video editing software
6. Free Google Earth Replacement
7. gNewSense — The all free software GNU/Linux operating system
8. GNU Octave — free software Matlab replacement
9. Replacement for OpenDWG libraries
10. Reversible Debugging in GDB
11. Free software drivers for network routers

Okay, I don't get this. I don't know about all of the software mentioned in this list, but Adobe Flash player is free, Skype is free (with subscription option), and Google Earth is also free (with subscription/Pro option).

Also, I never paid anything for my BIOS firmware or router drivers.

Or am I missing something?

mouser · « **Reply #12 on:** October 04, 2008, 04:48 AM »

maybe this would be useful: http://www.abc-ware.com/cashprinter.htm

40hz · « **Reply #13 on:** October 04, 2008, 12:33 PM »

Quote from: Deozaan on October 04, 2008, 04:16 AM

Okay, I don't get this. I don't know about all of the software mentioned in this list, but Adobe Flash player is free, Skype is free (with subscription option), and Google Earth is also free (with subscription/Pro option).

Also, I never paid anything for my BIOS firmware or router drivers.

Or am I missing something?

The Free Software Foundation's definition of "free" goes beyond being free of charge. To be considered "free" in the FSF universe, a product would have to be released under GPL. Any licensing restrictions would make it "not free" even if it were otherwise given away.

Quote

Free software is software that gives you the user the freedom to share, study and modify it. We call this free software because the user is free.

To use free software is to make a political and ethical choice asserting the right to learn, and share what we learn with others. Free software has become the foundation of a learning society where we share our knowledge in a way that others can build upon and enjoy.

That's the difference (for FSF anyway

) between something that's really "free" as opposed to just "available at no charge."

cmpm · « **Reply #14 on:** October 04, 2008, 01:17 PM »

I can't think of any software that can't be obtained without spending money except for XP. Noting that PhotoShop is an exception in functions, as well as programing tools.

http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

Is trying but I couldn't get it to work right though it would load.
See here also-

http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=4964.0

There is this site for finding things like this.
It covers more then software, it has a database that covers a lot.

http://dooblet.com/

SirSmiley · « **Reply #15 on:** October 04, 2008, 05:15 PM »

Since XP's an operating system it's kind of moot but, easily replaced with Linux which if memory service me correctly is free.

zridling · « **Reply #16 on:** October 04, 2008, 08:35 PM »

Yea, 40hz nails it. I'm just trying to find your favorite cheaper -- as in price -- alternatives for common commercial software or shareware. If it's FLOSS (Free/Libre Open Source Software), all the better. I even include donationware here, since at the very least, it's affordable to your ability to pay. The Free Software Foundation just listed some holes where coding would be great and save a lot of the money being sent to Adobe, et al. every year.

Dormouse · « **Reply #17 on:** October 04, 2008, 09:23 PM »

I'm not sure that FLOSS is automatically better.

Lots of FLOSS is really dross, and a lot is not well maintained. Big "commercial" enterprises tend to be needed to maintain large and very complex apps (and I do include the 'not for profit' OSS groups here) and most of the apps I really like are developed and maintained by one (or a very small team) of programmers - and many of them like to keep control by maintaining ownership of their code even when they are committed to keeping everything free.

4wd · « **Reply #18 on:** October 05, 2008, 12:01 AM »

Quote from: Dormouse on October 04, 2008, 09:23 PM

Lots of FLOSS is really dross.....

DROSS = Dearly Requested Open Source Software

Pretty much everything on Donation Coder could be called DROSS¹ then

1 - DROSS is trademarked by me! You use it, I sue! So there!!!!!

Deozaan · « **Reply #19 on:** October 05, 2008, 05:08 AM »

Quote from: 40hz on October 04, 2008, 12:33 PM

Quote
Free software is software that gives you the user the freedom to share, study and modify it. We call this free software because the user is free.

Must be one of those "free as in freedom" things as opposed to a "free as in beer" thing.

Thanks for the clarification, 40hz.

40hz · « **Reply #20 on:** October 05, 2008, 04:51 PM »

Quote from: Dormouse on October 04, 2008, 09:23 PM

I'm not sure that FLOSS is automatically better.

Lots of FLOSS is really dross, and a lot is not well maintained. Big "commercial" enterprises tend to be needed to maintain large and very complex apps (and I do include the 'not for profit' OSS groups here) and most of the apps I really like are developed and maintained by one (or a very small team) of programmers - and many of them like to keep control by maintaining ownership of their code even when they are committed to keeping everything free.

Spot on!

I'm very glad someone pointed that out. There is a certain faction in the FOSS world that makes the dubious argument that all "open" software is "better" merely by virtue of it's being "open."

There are many instances where commercial software is better in terms of functionality, user-experience, and support. But that is also not automatically true.

I have had several bad experiences with very expensive and well established software when it came to tech support and customer satisfaction. One was with the de facto industry standard desktop publishing app, and the other was with a very well known financial accounting package. Both boasted of how good their support was, and even saw fit to charge for it on a per incident basis.

I'll be polite and call their claims exaggerated, and let it go at that.

One of the things that does annoy me about some commercial software publishers is what I see as an abuse of the term "free." The FOSS world may be a little off the deep end (for some people) with their insistence that there be no secrets or restrictions on anything. But at least they have a published definition of what they mean by the word "free." I am personally sick of downloading something billed as "free" only to discover it is critically feature limited (i.e. print or save disabled), time or use restricted (15 days, 20 records, etc.); or even worse, installs as a non-functional flash demo.

And then there are those organizations that benefit from the FOSS movement by using its work in a commercial product without adhering to the provisions of the GPL. One of the favorite dodges I've been seeing lately involves the availability of source code. Under GPL, source code must be made available - but it doesn't say precisely how that has to be done. There are some so-called "OSS" products that make it extremely difficult for you to get source code. Some only make source available on disk (for a fee). Others only make it available in pieces via their version control system. And some simply don't make mention of source code at all, forcing you to badger them until they comply with the GPL.

Paul Hawkins wrote an interesting article on setting up profit sharing for your own company. He said that you should only do it if you really intended to share. He cautioned that, if you weren't motivated by a fundamental sense of fairness, you'd be far better off not doing it at all. Then he made a wonderful observation: People are more willing to respect greed than they are hypocrisy.

I think that insight is equally valid for software publishing..

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #21 on:** October 05, 2008, 09:25 PM »

Quote from: 40hz on October 04, 2008, 12:33 PM

The Free Software Foundation's definition of "free" goes beyond being free of charge. To be considered "free" in the FSF universe, a product would have to be released under GPL. Any licensing restrictions would make it "not free" even if it were otherwise given away.

Using that argument if I write a piece of software that has no license whatsoever beyond 'its yours do what you like with it' then it isn't free ??

It's a bit like saying I'll buy you a drink but the drink isn't free unless I provide you with the keys to the brewery.

FSF approach is just plain stupid (IMHO).

4wd · « **Reply #22 on:** October 05, 2008, 11:05 PM »

Quote from: Carol Haynes on October 05, 2008, 09:25 PM

Quote from: 40hz on October 04, 2008, 12:33 PM
The Free Software Foundation's definition of "free" goes beyond being free of charge. To be considered "free" in the FSF universe, a product would have to be released under GPL. Any licensing restrictions would make it "not free" even if it were otherwise given away.

It's a bit like saying I'll buy you a drink but the drink isn't free unless I provide you with the keys to the brewery.

Actually, it's more like: I'll make you a drink (program) but it isn't free unless I provide the list of ingredients (requirements, eg. libs, etc) and mixing instructions (program code).

It's up to the end user to provide the equipment for mixing it, (ie. compiler, etc).

You're implying you'd being giving away the compiler (brewery) as well to qualify as FSF free.

Now I'm getting thirsty.....

Quote from: Carol Haynes on October 05, 2008, 09:25 PM

FSF approach is just plain stupid (IMHO).

IMHO, it isn't. Simply for the fact that if I have a piece of GPL software, (assuming compliance), that has stopped development and that I use, I know that if I require a bug fixed, feature added/removed, etc I can:
1) do it myself, (even if I have to learn the language - something I've done before);
2) get a friend to do it;
3) ask on the internet if there is someone willing to do it;
4) offer a donation/money to someone at DC to do it;
5) pay a programmer to do it;
6) etc, etc, etc.

A far cry from trying to get closed source, non-developed software modified or having to create a program from scratch.

Give me a program that does what I want and I have the possibility to adapt to my needs over closed-source any day.

40hz · « **Reply #23 on:** October 06, 2008, 12:25 AM »

Quote from: Carol Haynes on October 05, 2008, 09:25 PM

FSF approach is just plain stupid (IMHO).

Yes, there are those who will agree with you.

But I also think it's worth noting that the people who brought you Linux, Apache, MySQL, BIND, DNS, Sendmail, the TCP/IP protocol stack, the Ethernet protocol, HTML, CSS, XML, Python, Perl, C++... (oh the list just goes on and on and on) - and continue to contribute to their development and maintenance don't agree.

And I think the world is a far better place for it.

IMHO.

Darwin · « **Reply #24 on:** October 06, 2008, 12:36 AM »

Hmm... IMNSHO, this discussion/argument is really about semantics. I *think* this is why people take such pains to differentiate between "free", "open-source", "donationware", etc. Witness some of the inane threads we've had here over the years in which someone will drop in to lambaste our beloved leader for what they perceive to be his incorrect use of the term "free" in describing the cost of using one of his applications... It would be nice if everyone would just get together to come up with universal definitions for these things: free means you can use the app without paying for it, Open Source means you can monkey around with the innards of the application, donationware means use it and if you like it shoot the developer some shekels for his or her hard work (but no one is going to hold your feet to the fire to make you do so), etc.

40hz, I am with you on the issue of commercial developers/vendors describing crippled demos as "free". But then, that's us, right back to semantics